New Scientist

[Derek Smith]

The 'Christmas Issue' of New Scientist is out. A really good read. A bit pricey at £4.50 but only just a bit.

[durbster]

Nice one.

I might grab a subscription in the new year.

[funkyrobot]

Haven't read it for years.

Put me off when they started harping on about climate change a lot.

Is it better now?

[Derek Smith]

funkyrobot said:

Haven't read it for years.

Put me off when they started harping on about climate change a lot.

Is it better now?

They deal in science. They cover it reasonably.

[funkyrobot]

Derek Smith said:

They deal in science. They cover it reasonably.

Yes. However, everyone has an agenda. I read an article in the magazine years ago and it had no balance whatsoever. It was just man killing world, models show this etc. Nothing to counter the argument.

[durbster]

funkyrobot said:

Put me off when they started harping on about climate change a lot.

It's one of the most important science stories of the last 20 years. They're hardly going to ignore it.

[smn159]

Received my copy today - have subscribed for about a year now and find it consistently excellent.

[ReaderScars]

Is that the rustling of charts I can hear...?

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

funkyrobot said:

Put me off when they started harping on about climate change a lot.

It's one of the most important science fairy stories of the last 20 years. They're hardly going to ignore it.

Obvious error corrected.

[funkyrobot]

durbster said:

It's one of the most important science stories of the last 20 years. They're hardly going to ignore it.

I know.

However, they could provide a balanced viewpoint. I remember reading an article about child sex offenders in prison. They wrote about different schools of thought. I.e., the offender is mentally ill and can't help it, against the opinion that they know what they are doing and are evil.

The climate change article was completely one sided. It basically said man is fooking the world up. They didn't provide anything from the counter argument side.

[smn159]

funkyrobot said:

durbster said:

It's one of the most important science stories of the last 20 years. They're hardly going to ignore it.

I know.

However, they could provide a balanced viewpoint. I remember reading an article about child sex offenders in prison. They wrote about different schools of thought. I.e., the offender is mentally ill and can't help it, against the opinion that they know what they are doing and are evil.

The climate change article was completely one sided. It basically said man is fooking the world up. They didn't provide anything from the counter argument side.

Because they deal in science. They don't provide a balanced viewpoint on homeopathy, ghosts or whether we landed on the moon either.

Anyway, surely we have enough threads elsewhere on climate change conspiracy theories?

[mybrainhurts]

smn159 said:

Anyway, surely we have enough threads elsewhere on climate change conspiracy theories?

Never seen one. Do you have a link?

[peterperkins]

smn159 said:

Because they deal in science. They don't provide a balanced viewpoint on homeopathy, ghosts or whether we landed on the moon either.

Anyway, surely we have enough threads elsewhere on climate change conspiracy theories?

Brilliant. Spot on...

[mybrainhurts]

peterperkins said:

smn159 said:

Because they deal in science. They don't provide a balanced viewpoint on homeopathy, ghosts or whether we landed on the moon either.

Anyway, surely we have enough threads elsewhere on climate change conspiracy theories?

Brilliant. Spot on...

Still waiting for a link. Can you help?

[mondeoman]

peterperkins said:

smn159 said:

Because they deal in science. They don't provide a balanced viewpoint on homeopathy, ghosts or whether we landed on the moon either.

Anyway, surely we have enough threads elsewhere on climate change conspiracy theories?

Brilliant. Spot on...

[Einion Yrth]

I continue to subscribe, it occasionally has some science in it; too rarely in my opinion. Whenever bloody "Aviva Rutkin" weighs in on some point that I do know a fair amount about it's so far from any kind of accuracy that I am forced to distrust the output in areas that I am less certain of.

[Simpo Two]

If NS is too populist/lightweight you could consider Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html and Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/store/sa-magazi...